sophisticatedmonster asked: I know exactly what you meeaannn, William. It's like pushing a small, very dense stone up a hill. If one person can't carry it by themselves, it's not like you can help because you'll only make it worse if you try to hold the stone with them. So all you can do is cheer them on, and even then your cheers may be negatively affecting the carrier. The stone carrier being feministic women and some feministic men, with the cheerer being the other feministic men.
…Kind of.
I remember one episode of The Simpsons where Principal Skinner kept saying sexist stuff without knowing what was wrong with it, and… well, let’s just say that’s what kicked off the plot. That’s the sort of thing I’m talking about - unless you can see yourself as a woman thinking of men the same way you actually do of women, everyone but you will know you’re doing it wrong. (And unless that perception involves equality, you’re supporting a battle of the sexes, and that’s really bad.)
What bugs me about male feminism is that we guys are taught by just about everything - books, movies, our parents, everything - to see girls we like (assuming heterosexuality here, because gay couples hardly exist in these “lessons”) as things to earn. Most people would probably say the key word in that last sentence is “things”, but I say it’s “earn”. Why?
Because the idea that any girl can be “earned” if one tries hard enough is harder to shake. Even among the guys who have learned to treat women as people and not objects, many of them still can’t see certain women as “off-limits” (whether it’s because she doesn’t see them as compatible, she’s taken, she’s lesbian, or whatever). This sucks for two reasons:
- Even though women in general would love a guy who doesn’t suffer from this problem (just look at Bolin), the whole idea is as counter-intuitive as ideas get: “how is reducing my potential dating pool supposed to help me find true love?” (I know some would argue a quest for true love is inherently objectifying regardless of whether there’s a specific “target”, but that’s beside the point.)
- It seriously screws with men’s perceptions of certain issues without their even realizing it. In fact, it’s the main reason there are so many guys who advocate feminism and can’t see how sexist they are in their daily lives.
Yes, this is partly a self-deprecation post.
(ETA: For all you guys out there who are struggling with this kind of indoctrination, there is a temporary fix: drop the quest until further notice. It’ll stop you from judging women by their appearances, which should help a lot, but it’ll also boost your confidence and let you focus more on other things, which will help you find a good partner, anyway.)
fohawkhawtie replied to your post: I need some help pinpointing why, exactly, Nickelback sucks.
Wait, why would you be- …oh, you’re a fan.
I only asked because everyone says they suck. They’re not quite my genre, hence the question.
(ETA: I realize this conflicts with my initial explanation. That one wasn’t quite true; I thought those Seether tracks sucked because they weren’t what I got the album for. I was looking for the Country Song, Fur Cue, and Roses stuff, not the Tonight and Yeah stuff.)
I know the usual complaints involve bland lyrics and/or a grating voice, but what is it outside the vocals? What makes everything else mediocre?
(No, I am not a Nickelback fan. I ask because I just downloaded a Seether album, and all the tracks that suck remind me of Nickelback - I’d like to know what they have in common.)
shimmz:
gcio:
God
comic
it
of
WOW BORING AS HELL
steampunk
haruhi
inspiration
movies
moustache
zombies
Let’s see…
white
internet
link
laptop
interesting
australia
music
tumblr
help
eyes
iq
numbers
food
idiot
lol
theatre
radiohead
art
theater
oh no
religion
(Source: demonicrosebush)
shimmz replied to your post: You don’t judge a song based on vocals unless the singer sucks? Isn’t that judging?
But dude you’re judging the singer by saying they “really suck” and that means you ARE JUDGING?
Yes, because they really suck, and therefore fall outside the field of songs I don’t judge by vocals. I did use the words “by”, “vocals”, and “unless”, right?
…All I’m trying to say is that I won’t call a song bad if the vocals are the only thing wrong with it, unless they’re so bad they get in the way.
